I of course fully expect them to try and circumvent the rules' intentions while staying within the letter of the law (edit: and within the actual tests). Fine with me, and at least part of the point of the whole exercise. But an argument along the lines of "hmm, I cannot make this joint infinitely rigid, so it should be just as fine if I put a hinge in its place" is IMHO nevertheless ridiculous.

I can't see anything ridiculous about such a mindest. Exploiting loopholes is the primary form of engineering innovation in the days of so strict and expanded regulations. All the teams up and down the pitlane try to circumvent the rules somehow - mass dampers, flexi floors, double diffusers, f-duct, flexi wings, now these pivotal wings - these are our equivalents of the fan and ground effect cars from the past. The extreme lengths the engineers seem to be going to in order to gain even the smallest advantage are indeed cool and impressive, if anything.

You work for RBR right? The people suffering from an infliction which forces them so seek the most outrageous interpretation of every concept?For people who do not have this problem it was always obvious that just because you cannot make something infinitely rigid does not automatically mean that unavoidable minimal movement is the same as designing a movable part on purpose trying to circumvent the rules.

I do not work for RBR (or any F1 team for that matter). I wouldn't be a very good engineer if I wasn't able to bend (see what I did there?) each restriction or regulation to its fullest.

The apparent facts are:

- The static front wing load tests require no part of the front wing to foul the minimum distance above RP with 100kg (981N) applied 750mm from centreline- The vehicles show a fair amount of wing twist in operation, potentially fouling this minimum distance rule

The conclusions of this are that the tests don't replicate the real loads the wings experience during operation. The aerodynamic centre will be in a different chord position than where the loads are applied. If you wanted to update the rule, you could state:

The front wing will not deflect sufficiently for any part of the bodywork to be closer to the reference plane than 75mm when 100kg is placed on the Neutral Axis of the wing, 750mm from the centre-line.

I think it's about time the FIA were more aggressive. The way it is now teams flout the spirit of the rules if they can find a technical, literal loophole. That loophole gets closed 2-6 races after the team introduces said innovation/rule-flouting device. I think the FIA should tell the teams there will be less latitude. If you get caught breaking the spirit of the rules, for a very clear breach at least, then you will be penalised retrospectively.

This could have well cost Fernando Alonso the championship, and I don't think that's fair. I had wondered where McLaren and Red Bull were pulling their sudden pace from. [And no I'm neither an Alonso or Ferrari fan - I tend to follow Mark Webber, and Sauber].

I can't see anything ridiculous about such a mindest. Exploiting loopholes is the primary form of engineering innovation in the days of so strict and expanded regulations. All the teams up and down the pitlane try to circumvent the rules somehow - mass dampers, flexi floors, double diffusers, f-duct, flexi wings, now these pivotal wings - these are our equivalents of the fan and ground effect cars from the past. The extreme lengths the engineers seem to be going to in order to gain even the smallest advantage are indeed cool and impressive, if anything.

Thanks for drawing the story to our attention

I'm with you. I'm perfectly ok with exploiting loopholes. Lots of people screamed 'CHEATS' at Red Bull and other teams before for doing similar things, but its part of the game.

I'm also ok with the FIA clamping down on this stuff if they find out, though. Thats also part of the game.

Me too - I couldn't find anything when I searched but I'm certain this has been discussed before if not as an explanation of what was actually happening then as a possibility.

I originally posted the McLaren pitching front wing to F1technical back in Melbourne and cross posted it here. McLaren also used a similar system in 2011 where a camera mounted by the wing supports showed it separating at high speed towards the rear of the pylon to achieve the same effect. Charlie told McLaren to stop doing that to such extremes and they reduced it after that.

I'm with you. I'm perfectly ok with exploiting loopholes. Lots of people screamed 'CHEATS' at Red Bull and other teams before for doing similar things, but its part of the game.

I'm also ok with the FIA clamping down on this stuff if they find out, though. Thats also part of the game.

I am partially ok with them clamping it down, if they do it in a way that is consistent with the regulations... BUT if they are going to do so in such a way that a modification to the text of the rule (not the spirit, but the text) has to be included, then I would say is better to wait until 2013. IMO, it is similar to the flexing in the rear wings of the Ferrari in 2006: there was lots of talk about it, and the FIA never found anything unusual, but just one week before Canada (the first track on which such a flexing would have made a difference) the FIA chnaged the definition of rear wing, by forcing the teams to add an element in the middle. That, in my opinion, was wrong: they didn't change the test there. They change the rule halfway through to satisfy one team (Renault).

I can't see anything ridiculous about such a mindest. Exploiting loopholes is the primary form of engineering innovation in the days of so strict and expanded regulations. All the teams up and down the pitlane try to circumvent the rules somehow - mass dampers, flexi floors, double diffusers, f-duct, flexi wings, now these pivotal wings - these are our equivalents of the fan and ground effect cars from the past. The extreme lengths the engineers seem to be going to in order to gain even the smallest advantage are indeed cool and impressive, if anything.

Thanks for drawing the story to our attention

I agree with what you wrote. A legalese explanation makes sense from a tactical point of view in a legal argument, and it's one thing if, e.g., Horner uses it while knowing full well inside that he is bullshitting. However on the forum I sometimes perceive the opinion to be expressed that such an argument makes sense from a logical point of view, and that's what I meant. Sorry if I seemed to pin this on any one poster, it was meant more like a general comment.

Something similar - the method they used last year in Valencia was spotted and banned I think, and for the rest of the year they went back to copying Red Bull's drooping flexi wing. This year with that method harder to acheive, McLaren have probably found a way to acheive the effect of the Valencia hinged wing without failing the deflection tests, and Red Bull followed suit.

Confirms what the FIA were looking at in scruteneering for ages after the Australia quali session too.

The purpose of this modification, if true, is to reduce the angle of attack of the front wing at high speed thus reducing the lift co-efficient (less downforce and drag) and/or increase the lift co-efficient (more downforce & drag) at low speed. As such it would be clearly a movable aerodynamic device and is outside the letter as well as the spirit of the regulations.

In essence, no different, except perhaps number of degrees of change of angle of attack from the adjustable front wings of a couple of seasons ago.

On the other hand, I know of no comparable device fitted to aircraft which optimises the angle of attack of a lifting surface automatically due to airspeed, on the contrary, every such device uses mechanical/hydraulic/electric systems to work against the aerodynamic forces involved in order to change the angle of attack.

If true, the last time we saw such blatant contempt for the regulations was Ferrari's flexi floor

I think that's because the car has the track to push against and provide the force balance needed.

There were pictures of Mercedes front wing pylons with visible gaps at the point of attachment to the wing but was commented as something to do with their passive duct system. Now I am asking myself are RBR and McLaren the only teams to exploit this.http://www.formula1....12/d12sin31.jpg

I think you maybe speak about the flexing tea tray on RBR car. Which principally is the same as approach to the rules. It was largely covered by Scarbs.

No, definitely the wing but the teatray was interesting too. This may be it...

I originally posted the McLaren pitching front wing to F1technical back in Melbourne and cross posted it here. McLaren also used a similar system in 2011 where a camera mounted by the wing supports showed it separating at high speed towards the rear of the pylon to achieve the same effect. Charlie told McLaren to stop doing that to such extremes and they reduced it after that.

A simple solution to all this is for the FIA to mandate the teams to run with a sensor at the mounting point, one at the front of the end plate, and one at the rear of the end plate. If the sensors exceed the deflection test values during normal operation (running down straights ect, excluding hitting curbs or running wide) then the wing is illegal.

A simple solution to all this is for the FIA to mandate the teams to run with a sensor at the mounting point, one at the front of the end plate, and one at the rear of the end plate. If the sensors exceed the deflection test values during normal operation (running down straights ect, excluding hitting curbs or running wide) then the wing is illegal.

Until he was kicked out of F1, he was in charge of Alonso's contract. Not sure if once the FIA lifted part of the sanction, he came back with the spaniard or not; but he remains a loyal supporter of Fernando. If he can add his two cents to help his protegee (even in the mindgames against his rivals) he will certainly do so.

If they have an idea that it is a movable device, won't they be able to get around the normal test limits? If it flexes/pivots by only being mounted with one screw for example, it is obvious you are going to get deflection at speed. IMO this become a movable device.

Since the FIA seems to have failed miserably at policing the flexing of the front wing, migth as well just allow it to flex. Because the biggest advantage is not that it flexes but that it flexes while the other competitors dont. The original purpose of the rule was cost saving. I wonder how much money Mclaren and Red Bull saved on developing this ultra complex carbon fiber functional properties that cheats the FIA test.

"Q: How and why have the tests for front wing deflection changed?CW: The rules state the wings (as well as all other parts of the bodywork) must be rigid. We have halved the permitted deflection. Previously the wing was tested with a 1kN load and allowed to deflect 20mm. As a result of this the teams were testing wings until they found a design that deflected 19.9mm under a 1kN load. Our allowances are only a guideline for us and we felt the teams were operating outside the spirit of the rules and clearly designing their wings with flexibility in mind. In our view Article 3.15 takes precedence over Article 3.17 where the deflection limits are quantified. Article 3.17.8 allows us to introduce new tests if we feel our guidelines are not being following in an appropriate manner. The new test therefore moves the pressure point rearwards by 10mm and inboard by 5mm with the permitted deflection reduced to 10mm. We have also told the teams that we may apply the load to just one side of the front wing, an asymmetrical test."

And article 3.17.8 says:

"3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 [which is about aerodynamic influence and rigidity of bodywork] are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion."

So, to me this sounds like the FIA can test the bodywork for flexibility in whatever way they like to ensure the regulations.

Since the FIA seems to have failed miserably at policing the flexing of the front wing, migth as well just allow it to flex. Because the biggest advantage is not that it flexes but that it flexes while the other competitors dont. The original purpose of the rule was cost saving. I wonder how much money Mclaren and Red Bull saved on developing this ultra complex carbon fiber functional properties that cheats the FIA test.

Are you sure? I always thought that the rule has existed for a very long time and was brought in as a safety measure after the bad security record of early F1 aero, which was seemingly created by amateurs with no understanding of engineering or math, who nevertheless started to dabble in movable aero quickly. But I failed at googling for evidence.

Are you sure? I always thought that the rule has existed for a very long time and was brought in as a safety measure after the bad security record of early F1 aero, which was seemingly created by amateurs with no understanding of engineering or math, who nevertheless started to dabble in movable aero quickly. But I failed at googling for evidence.

At the end of the nineties, early zero's you had teams developing flexible rear wings for the straights on Monza and flexing front wings of course. They ware banned because, eventually someone would goof up and the flexible part could snap.

Simple solution to this pivoting is to have the front wing have four/six rigid mounting points front and back at least xx cm's apart on the struts so you cannot have a pivot.